[apparmor] AppArmor release versions

[Seth Arnold]

On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Kees Cook <kees.cook at canonical.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 04:22:46PM -0700, John Johansen wrote:
>> The use of ~beta1, ... in our release versions has proven to be problematic from

>> The proposal is the next development release moves to a
>>
>>   2.7.0.99.xx  format

> I think 99.X is fine for all alpha, beta, and rc releases. Since
> they're always linear, 99.1 is whatever we say it is, 99.2 is next,
> etc.  Alternatively we could declare a mapping from the "99" part to
> alpha/beta/rc?
>
>    .90 == alpha
>    .95 == beta
>    .99 == rc

I prefer the "whatever we say it is" approach; I don't think we
need any extra layers of formalism.

But if you're (anyone :) familiar with another project that uses this
formalism and _not_ using it would be confusing or annoying, then I've got
nothing against it, either.